President Bushs decision to withdraw the U.S. signature from the Statute of the International Criminal Court threatens to undermine the administrations global campaign against terrorism.

The courts purpose is to try individuals who commit crimes against humanity -- acts of mass terror against civilian populations, such as the ones carried out against the United States last September. One would think that the White House would welcome such international cooperation in the war on terror. But it does not and is making an emphatic point of saying that it will not recognize the new court.

In defense of its action, the administration claims that the statute would enable foreign countries to arrest U.S. citizens for political reasons and hand them over for trial before foreign judges in The Hague.

In fact, however, a pretrial review panel will be set up to dispose of frivolous or politically motivated charges. Most cases will be brought by a chief prosecutor, or by the Security Council, where the United States has a veto. Most of the judges will be from countries allied to the United States.

Were there merit to the U.S. claims, the ICC Statute would not have been ratified by 14 of 15 members of the European Union (the 15th, Greece, is in the process of ratifying) and by Canada. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair, normally a staunch ally of the White House, vigorously disagrees with Bush on this matter.

In combating the court, the United States is lining up alongside Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Cuba and China -- nations with good reasons to fear such a tribunal. Why?

SERVE U.S. OBJECTIVES

Could it be that the White House wishes to reserve the right to support the use of terror against foreign civilians when it serves U.S. objectives -- just as it wishes to reserve the right to use land mines, even though foreign civilians are the prime victims? Consider the case of Emmanuel Constant.

Constant led a terrorist group called FRAPH that murdered hundreds of Haitian civilians in the early 1990s under the military junta that overthrew President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. When U.S. troops invaded the island nation in 1994 and searched FRAPH headquarters, they seized documents and photographs that depicted the torture and murder of civilians.

Yet Constant was permitted to enter the United States and settle in Queens. A 1995 deportation order has remained unenforced for seven years. The Bush administration has so far declined to extradite Constant. The reason? Constant was on the CIA payroll and has threatened to expose the collaboration of U.S. security agencies with his organization.

The hypocrisy does not end there. Just because Bush does not want U.S. officials held accountable before an international tribunal does not mean he does not want leaders of other countries brought before such tribunals.

On the very day that the United States was boycotting the U.N. ceremony commemorating establishment of the ICC, it succeeded in pressuring the Serbian parliament to pass a law facilitating extradition of key deputies of former President Slobodan Milosevich to face trial before another U.N. tribunal in The Hague. The vote occurred after the United States cut $40 million in economic assistance to protest what it called inadequate cooperation with the U.N. tribunal.

A ONE-WAY STREET

In other words, international tribunals are fine, even mandatory for prosecuting U.S. enemies. But yet the United States is demanding an exemption for its citizens. International justice, in Washingtons view, is a one-way street.

The double standard is doing incalculable damage to U.S. interests worldwide. To have any chance of winning a global war on terrorism, the United States will need the support of its allies. To secure that support, it must demonstrate that it is waging a war for the benefit of humankind, not as a cover for U.S. hegemony.

Until the United States reverses its stand on the International Criminal Court, its war on terrorism will ring hollow and will only foster the anti-Americanism that led to Sept. 11 in the first place.

Andrew Reding is a senior fellow of the World Policy Institute and an associate editor of Pacific News Service.

Copyright 2002 Miami Herald

###